(DDM) – The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a lawsuit seeking to compel the Federal Government and its officials to refund monies allegedly spent during the period of emergency rule in Rivers State.
Diaspora Digital Media (DDM) gathered that the judgment was delivered on Thursday by Justice James Omotosho, who ruled that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case.
The suit was filed by the Incorporated Trustees of Rivsbridge, a civil society group, following President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s controversial March 18 declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State.
The declaration had led to the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and the Rivers State House of Assembly for six months, effectively placing the state under federal control.
During the emergency period, President Tinubu appointed retired naval chief Ibok-Ete Ibas as the sole administrator of Rivers State, granting him sweeping powers to manage the affairs and finances of the oil-rich state.
On September 17, the state of emergency was lifted, with Governor Fubara directed to resume office the following day.
However, Rivsbridge later approached the court, seeking an order compelling Tinubu, the Federal Government, the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Accountant-General, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), and Ibas to refund all monies withdrawn or spent from Rivers State’s consolidated revenue fund during the emergency.
Justice Omotosho, in dismissing the case, held that the matter was beyond the court’s jurisdiction.
He did not make a pronouncement on the legality of the expenditures but rather emphasized the procedural limits of the court in relation to the claims made by the applicants.
The decision leaves lingering questions over how much was spent during the emergency rule and whether proper accountability measures were followed in line with Nigeria’s financial regulations.
Background checks reveal that Rivers State, one of Nigeria’s major oil-producing states, has long been a hotspot for political tussles and control of resources.
The imposition of emergency rule in March sparked widespread debate, with critics accusing the presidency of undermining democratic governance in the state.
Civil rights advocates have argued that the appointment of a sole administrator sidelined the constitutional role of an elected governor and state legislature, setting what they described as a dangerous precedent.
The dismissal of the Rivsbridge case now leaves activists pondering their next move.
Legal experts suggest that the group may file an appeal at the Court of Appeal, seeking to challenge both the ruling and the broader constitutional issues surrounding the declaration of emergency rule.
For many Rivers residents, the controversy has renewed calls for greater transparency and accountability in the handling of state finances, particularly during periods of political crisis.
Analysts also note that the dismissal is a relief for the federal government, which has been under increasing pressure to explain the financial decisions made during the emergency period.
Whether Rivsbridge will pursue the matter further in the appellate courts remains unclear.
What is certain, however, is that the judgment will keep alive Nigeria’s growing debate on the balance between federal authority and state autonomy.
Post Views: 101
